ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for predicting prognosis in sepsis patients with a history of cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence for early sepsis detection and dynamic prognostication in onco-critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Mortality and Outcome Prediction in Intensive Care Unit Sepsis: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Brain tumor detection on magnetic resonance imaging scans using the artificial intelligence-based You Only Look Once algorithm.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for mortality prediction in ICU patients with lung cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundSepsis is the leading cause of mortality in critically ill cancer patients; however, traditional prognostic models fail to capture the complexity of their immune and physiological interactions.MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed electronic health records from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database, including the records of patients with sepsis who had a documented history of cancer and were admitted to the intensive care unit. A two-step feature selection approach, combining least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression and recursive feature elimination, was used to identify key prognostic variables. Eight machine learning algorithms, such as random forest and extreme gradient boosting, were trained and evaluated using five-fold cross-validation. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value, Brier scores, sensitivity, and specificity. SHapley Additive exPlanations, Partial Dependence Plots, and break down algorithms were applied to enhance model interpretability.ResultsThe final cohort included 3364 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Nonsurvivors had significantly higher illness severity scores (Acute Physiology Score III and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) than survivors (p < 0.001). Among the tested models, the random forest model demonstrated superior performance, achieving the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (0.78; 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.80) and the lowest Brier score (0.15), indicating strong predictive accuracy.ConclusionsThis study developed machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients with a history of cancer, leveraging the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database for comprehensive risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.